Complaint Rule prohibiting personal theories

[AdrianMay]

As it happens, I didn't know that rule, and I find it quite absurd. Aren't all theories personal at the moment of their conception? At what moment does a theory become official enough to be seemly in this temple of doctrine? Take the newly found dark matter for instance. Did that make the grade yet?

 

[berkeman]

As it happens, I didn't know that rule, and I find it quite absurd. Aren't all theories personal at the moment of their conception? At what moment does a theory become official enough to be seemly in this temple of doctrine? Take the newly found dark matter for instance. Did that make the grade yet?

The gold standard at the PF is that the theory has to have been published in a peer-reviewed mainstream journal. You can find the list of such journals in the rules (see INFO at the top of the page). So yes to your Dark Matter question...

 

[berkeman]

As it happens, I didn't know that rule, and I find it quite absurd.

But you've been a PF member for 7 years. It's not like you're a newbie...

 

[AdrianMay]

But if the journal already peer reviewed and published it, what is PF for?

It's for amateurs to get their brain around that stuff of course. But isn't an amateur's attempt to interpret high end science a theory in itself? Surely, you and me can only theorise about what they might mean by a Higgs boson.

Anyway, stop being such a spoil sport. In case you didn't notice, I didn't even disclose my theory. I'm asking if anybody else knows the answer. So far, I got no offers, so perhaps other people would be curious about mine.

In the mean time, you might enjoy Helmholtz's 1858 paper on integrals of hydrodynamic equations that correspond to vortex motions.

 

[AdrianMay]

Helmholtz's 1858 paper is a PDF on Google under the name I gave.

I like your sarcasm, but I hope nobody misinterprets it as trolling. That would be incongruous in a mentor.

Thinking more about that rule, in this case it seems to be having the undesirable effect of stifling a discussion because the answer is not readily available on Google. I'd have thought that was precisely the factor that makes it worthy of discussion.

There probably are papers from the 19th century but they're lost in the mists of time now, or perhaps the letters section of New Scientist already dissected this topic ad nauseam in the 1970s, but nobody in this thread seems to know where that stuff is, so we'll just have to figure it out from scratch.

If I mentioned a theory of my own, I don't claim exclusivity in that, I think everybody can have their own take on this everyday experience. Even my three year old son has a theory: he thinks it's electric. The rest of us might not be making much more sense, but until some eminent scientist decides that plugholes are better for his career than dark matter, we'll just have to muddle along.

A phenomenon that everybody can experience without digging up half of Switzerland, can think about intuitively without an arsenal of mathematical machinery, and can experiment on just by cutting a hole in a bucket, seems to me like just the kind of topic that amateur science is here for.

 

[ZapperZ]

Oh brother, not this AGAIN!,

Zz.

 

[Nugatory]

But if the journal already peer reviewed and published it, what is PF for?

To quote from our mission statement:

Our mission is to provide a place for people (whether students, professional scientists, or others interested in science) to learn and discuss science as it is currently generally understood and practiced by the professional scientific community.​

Peer-reviewed publication and/or support in accepted textbooks has proven to be a pretty good test for "as it is currently generally understood".

 

[mfb]

But isn't an amateur's attempt to interpret high end science a theory in itself?

No.
In addition, not everyone here is an amateur.

Even my three year old son has a theory

He does not. He has an uneducated opinion.

 

[jtbell]

For an explanation of why our policy on personal theories is the way it is:

https://www.physicsforums.com/help/speculation/

 

[anorlunda]

I find that thread tiresome to read. Partly because of comments like this that I find offensive.

I have a theory of my own in mind, and it's within reach of a five year old, but I've had such fun torturing my family and colleagues with the question that I thought I'd pester you lot with it too. I won't spill the beans just yet.

Yet the thread still remains open.

 

[Nugatory]

For an explanation of why our policy on personal theories is the way it is:
https://www.physicsforums.com/help/speculation/

And also https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wont-look-new-theory/

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Lots of great answers, thanks for the feedback AdrianMay!

 

[PeterDonis]

Yet the thread still remains open.

Not any more. As my comments in the post closing the thread show, I agree with your sentiment expressed in an early post in that thread.